Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (
More info?)
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:13:50 -0400, "Dave C."
<mdupre@sff.net> wrote:
>Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster
>Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it
>Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three
>TENTHS of a percentage point faster.
>So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and
>one tie.
>GAMING OVERALL: TIED
LOL!
If only it were that easy.
>
>Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away
No
>Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away
>Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away
No
>
>Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the
>towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide.
Actually, this is the only place Intel ever makes any
significant ground against AMD.
>
>Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide
Nope, unless you only count new apps, which raise price of
the P4.
>Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both
>*CPU* and memory benchmarks
>
>Actually, I'm glad you called me out on this issue. I was previously under
>the impression that AMD and Intel were pretty well matched. But on
>reviewing the benchmarks again, I'd have to conclude that AMD is only a good
>idea if you plan to do nothing but DX8 gaming with your computer.
>Otherwise, you are wasting your money buying an AMD chip.
You must be a shill.
Only someone using applications proven to be P4 optimized,
that is, spending MORE money for these apps, can expect a P4
to even be competitive with an Athlon, let alone be faster
at anything save a few particular situations like video
editing, and even then, if ignoring older codecs, if
recompression is not done or new codecs purchased or bundled
with editing suite.
>Again, even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to
>build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are
>better bargains to be found. Considering that an Intel system will likely
>be cheaper to build and WILL perform better on all benchmarks except DX8,
>it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment.
Sadly, you are biased in favor of Intel.
There ARE good reasons to buy intel, IF you have specific
apps proven to benefit. ASSUMING that performance of a P4
on those specific benchmarked apps will translate into a
performance benefit on DIFFERENT or OLDER apps, is foolish.
Someone who's pocketbook is fattened by ultimate
productivity may easily be able to justify buying newest
applications, but it must be factored into the cost of a P4,
if you expect the performance seen in the benchmark.
>Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. The only way AMD could change that
>would be to drop their prices by 30% or better. -Dave 9/20/04
Funny that, most everyone else knows that Intel is
scrambling to keep up. They can take the market back quite
easily, that is, the share they formerly held, by simply
dropping prices and relying on the perception of their
name-brand "quality", until they have more competitive
products that don't double as space-heaters.
>
>http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html
>
>Yeah, I know you are going to blast Tom's Hardware. It's funny that their
>benchmarks agree with tests run by all the other hardware guide web sites,
>though . . . including anandtech.
Actually there is a disturbing trend where reviews simply
assume companies and private users will buy newest versions
of all their software over and over again, even when it
costs hundreds of $$$ (for single user) or many thousands
for a company, even in support alone.
So add up the total cost of the software being benchmarked
in those reviews.. probably over $1000, perhaps much higher,
then what's the total cost for that P4?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram